NationStates Jolt Archive

As we know, the vast majority of Generalites do not support America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Barring the politics in the situation, do you "support the troops"?

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?

I would never spit on them (it wasn't exactly their choice), but I don't "support" them either. I think of them as terrorists sent by a government.

Cheer for them, respect them greatly, and I fully agree with what they are doing, I think there is quite a bit of support among those here for the war...

Though illegal war? Isn't that a rather ironic statement?

Neither. I pity them.

I know a few people who are fighting in Iraq. I am against the war for several reasons, but the people I know who are fighting are doing so for noble reasons. They don't have any oil wells or Halliburton stock. They aren't getting paid much and none of them takes any pleasure in killing.

Oh yes, because I don't support Mr. Bush's failed expedition into Iraq, it must follow that I spit upon the troops. Yep.



Ass.

Though illegal war? Isn't that a rather ironic statement?
?

I supported the war, and continue to do so. I certainly support the troops, and would even if I disagreed with the war and the reasons for being there.

I wouldn't spit on them, but I don't support their mission. I would never spit on them. That was a tricky question.

*puts on cheerleader outfit*

No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!No!

Noooooooo!

Victory to the resistance.
While I feel bad for the working-class soldiers over there who get killed we have to remember that they are still there as agents of imperialism and are therefor legitimate targets for the Iraqis

... illegal war? Isn't that a rather ironic statement?
"Oxymoronic"

Victory to the resistance.
While I feel bad for the working-class soldiers over there who get killed we have to remember that they are still there as agents of imperialism and are therefor legitimate targets for the Iraqis

Are the masses of Iraqi civilians killed by the "resistance" legitimate targets? Like the children that were slaughtered for daring to take candy from American soldiers?

Are the masses of Iraqi civilians killed by the "resistance" legitimate targets? Like the children that were slaughtered for daring to take candy from American soldiers?
No they were not legitamte targets, they did nothing. But the sword cuts both ways.

Are the masses of Iraqi civilians killed by the "resistance" legitimate targets? Like the children that were slaughtered for daring to take candy from American soldiers?
These are isolated cases though. Looking at the actual figures of resistance targets, in the vast majority of incidents the coalition forces are targetted. It's summed up rather nicely in this chart-
http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

These are isolated cases though. Looking at the actual figures of resistance targets, in the vast majority of incidents the coalition forces are targetted. It's summed up rather nicely in this chart-
http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

Ummm...I personally prefer the BBC, Globalsecurity.org, or CNN for my figures....and call the resistance what they are by and large...terrorists.

Ummm...I personally prefer the BBC, Globalsecurity.org, or CNN for my figures....and call the resistance what they are by and large...terrorists.
Yup, it's not like they're trying to oust an invading party, is it?
I mean, American and Britain would never occupy another country illegaly would they?

I don't spit on soldiers, I don't cheer for them, I don't treat them differently than any other American. I don't even glorify or chastize them for what they do.

I don't support them.

1) It's a volunteer army. Whter or not they went in for the career opportunities or not, they had to have realized that they were being trained to kill other people, and be used as a political tool to meet the government's objectives. Those who plead ignorance get no free pass, as like the law, ignorance is not an exuse. What did they think the guns, greandes and military equipment was for? Going camping?

2) The military in the US has a long and inglorius history of being used in foreign wars to further America's influence and control in the world. The US has never really had to defend it's own soil in the last 150 years because it spends an awful lot of the time occupying other countries and setting up military bases on foreign soil. Is it any wonder that the locals may at times resent the fact that a foreign power has soldiers in their country?

3) The US government has often taken the expediant route when it comes to foreign policy- it has supported dictatorships and supported the overthrow of democratically elected countries when it suites their political objectives. These days it's no different; from countries like Uzbekistan (one of the most oppressive dictatorships on Earth) to Pakistan (democracy in name onlyt, threatens it's neighbours with nukes, harbours terrorists) to Saudi Arabia (the place where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from), the US has long supported unsavory regimes over democracy, even while the ruling administration bald-faced lies to the public about supporting democracy.

So, no, I don't support the soldiers, the regime that rules it, or any of the political machinary in between.

I do support / feel sorry for the troops who are fighting in the illegal Bush war in Iraq. I would never consider spitting on them or on anyone, but George Bush and his cronies should not come close enough to tempt me! ;)

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?
That's a wonderful overgeneralization. MY answer is "neither", because there's no troops for me to support where I live.

Perhaps I'm one of the few who's capable of seperating the troops from the current administration. I wholeheartedly support the troops, and with equal enthusiasm, haven't supported the war (or the administration who started the mess).

My friend Sgt. Prasse is over there, not exactly enjoying his job. He converted to Islam shortly before moving out (I went with him once to Mosque). He objects to the war, but he either does his job, or goes to a military prison. Why wouldn't I support him, and my fellow Americans who are just doing their jobs? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yup, it's not like they're trying to oust an invading party, is it?
I mean, American and Britain would never occupy another country illegaly would they?Which is probably why the insurgents have taken to targeting the American soldiers disguised as volonteers for the Iraqi army or police instead of the regular GIs...

I don't support the war, but I do support the troops.

They volentered to protect the country, not go to Iraq. Most volentered long before the war.

They are trying to do a difficult job with the horrible planning thats gone into the war. They are trying to make Iraqis lives better and keep them safe.

While they shouldn't be over their in the first place, I have always supported them and will continue to.

Which is probably why the insurgents have taken to targeting the American soldiers disguised as volonteers for the Iraqi army or police instead of the regular GIs...
So collaborating with the foe isn't a crime now? The French Resistance disagrees.

Ummm...I personally prefer the BBC, Globalsecurity.org, or CNN for my figures....and call the resistance what they are by and large...terrorists.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Did you know that during WWII the Germans called the French Resistance "Terrorists"?

Which is probably why the insurgents have taken to targeting the American soldiers disguised as volonteers for the Iraqi army or police instead of the regular GIs...
So by trying to stop the Coalition from turning Iraq into a sattelite state they're somehow not struggling for national independence anymore?

Wow...

Y'all mind staying on topic.

I support the troops. I may not agree with Bush, but I still don't wish harm to the troops. many of them are fighting to give another nation a chance at democracy, a chance to live out of a state of fear. Sure, there are terrorist attacks there, but beforethe Iraqi war, they had to live in a nation run by a homocidal dictator, who the US only supported when he was busy attacking Iran for us. The only differences between getting killed by a dictator and being killed by terrorists is the fact that you voted when the terrorists were threatening to kill the voters and you'd do it again.

Here are some facts:
Most of the "resistance" fighters in Iraq aren't Iraqi. They are foreigners who are afraid of democracy and want to force Iraq into Civil War. They are willing to slaughter civilians in order to further their political careers.

The US may not have had to fight a war on its soil since 1865, but we were attacked on our soil throughout the next 139 years. We just don't want invading armies on our soil. Would you rather your nation fight a war on your nation's soil or the enemy's? The whole "The US has not fought a war in 140 years" thing is just stupid. We fight wars to keep the attackers out of our nation.

The Iraqi government is not a puppet state. It is a government run by a group of people the Iraqis that the Iraqis put in power. The puppet state thing is bogus.

Just because Sadaam didn't support Al-queda doesn't mean he didn't support terrorists. There are other terrorist groups in the world, like those Palistinian groups and the KKK to name a few.

Supporting the troops is different from supporting Bush. Hating Bush should not mean hating the troops. They have their reasons for fighting.

I truely support the troops I want them to come home so you should have given us the opption to support the troops but be against the war

Wow...

Y'all mind staying on topic.You asked a stupid question and are getting unexpected replies...dont be a loser Crybaby now. :D

I don't support them. They're not my nation's soldiers. It is a volunteer army, so I don't even pity them...

What if they volunteered before the Iraqi war? Would you hate them for wanting to help conquer afghanistan, whose old government's only crime was killing a few thousand people who did nothing wrong? Maybe some of the troops volunteered for Afghanistan, but got stuck in Iraq. Maybe some of them are reservists who joined in the 1990's and were called into duty for Iraq. Would you support their trying to live now?

I thank those of you who suport me and my brothers in arms.

I've been to Iraq. The average Iraqi considers himself to be better off with Saddam gone, and are our best sources of intelligence when it comes to the insurgents. The Iraqi's aren't against us being there for the most part. Most of the insurgents are not iraqis.

I support the troops, but not the policy that put them in harm's way for a pack of lies. I would never ridicule or spit on a returning soldier. They don't make policy, they're just doing their job. And as others have pointed out, it's not as if they enjoy killing, they're following orders. Troops, yes. Bush administration, no.

You know, this really is a tough question and shouldn't have been laid down as a yes/no, do I cheer for them, or spit on them option? It is far more complex than that.

Firstly, I am totally against the illegal invasion of Iraq by the US

Secondly, I am totally against the Bush administration for send the soldiers into Iraq.

Thirdly, I am against the soldiers that would torture prisoners, cause unnecessary harm to civilians, or kill innocent civilians in a wanton manner.

However, I have empathy for the poor schmuck that was sent there under orders, who really doesn't want to be there. I hope these individuals never have to kill or be killed, but I am sure that it happens.

In regards to this thread (Do you "Support the Troops"?), it should be interesting to note that according to the report of a soldier in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437919&page=1&pp=15) started by Eutrusca that he complains about lack of Government support of the troops, and his resentment towards others who didn't serve in combat:

"Along the way a general stood shaking hands and exchanging salutes with the returning soldiers. Next to him, a young lieutenant shivered as he held an umbrella out at arm's length over the general. Neither had combat patches on their uniforms, and I splashed by without saluting or shaking hands. It gave little satisfaction."

"They had signed up for the fabled "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" and gotten very much more than they bargained for."

"As the weeks turned to months, however, and we watched active-duty units return to their families, our stoicism was replaced with mounting frustration. Our Vietnam-era flak vests, retooled M-16's more than two decades old and a general absence of supplies added to an irrefutable feeling that we had been abandoned in the lion's den."

"When the tour ended a year later, our uniforms were in tatters, night vision goggles had been packed away seven months earlier when all our replacement parts ran out, and the ragged men who stepped off the plane in Hinesville, Ga., scarcely resembled the "shock-and-awe" troops seen on television."

"That night, in the same dilapidated World War II barracks that we had deployed from an eternity before, I didn't sleep."

"A week later someone gave a speech, and bags full of coupons for free double cheeseburgers and oil changes were handed out. (Most of the good freebies had already been plundered by 17-year-old trainees who hadn't yet been to basic training.) "

What if they volunteered before the Iraqi war? Would you hate them for wanting to help conquer afghanistan, whose old government's only crime was killing a few thousand people who did nothing wrong?WTF?

"..afghanistan, whose old government's only crime was killing a few thousand"
What-the-Hell-are-you-talking-about?

I thank those of you who suport me and my brothers in arms.

I've been to Iraq. The average Iraqi considers himself to be better off with Saddam gone, and are our best sources of intelligence when it comes to the insurgents. The Iraqi's aren't against us being there for the most part. Most of the insurgents are not iraqis.I like Gun-toting-civilians.

.. the troops... it's not as if they enjoy killing..Actually... ive seen video Footage ...and its hard to say the GIs on the video do not enjoy killing the "enemy".

"Oxymoronic"

You know there are international laws regarding war.

As we know, the vast majority of Generalites do not support America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Barring the politics in the situation, do you "support the troops"?

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?

I do support the soldiers who are simply fullfilling their obligation--even in the face of bad leadership.

As far as the misuse of the term "Illegal War" it reduces your post to the contrived.

Why not if it is illegal, that the United States has not come under sanction?
Investigation?

The issue been raised in the UN security council to use force, either economic or military to stop the war?

An embargo? By any nation in the world?

A boycott by any nation in the world?

It would seem that no body which creates either national or international law has deemed this war illegal, so while you might not agree with it, you might wish with all your little heart that it was indeed illegal--in no court, in no council, in tribunal of political or jusdicial oversight has this war been officially named illegal--anywhere in the world.

SO you may presume to have some understanding of my thoughts politics, religion, world structure and law, but the fact remains the world through its leadership has not proclaimed this an illegal war, and they are the ones who are charged with making such an allegation it would seem that NO the Iraq/American War is indeed a Legal, if not a Just war--and even that is a matter of opinion.

I'm of two minds, really.

I don't "support the troops" by blindly agreeing with chimpman & his cronies in DC, but I don't hate them, resent them, or feel a need to worship the ground they walk on.

Mostly, I feel for them exactly like I feel about any other good person stuck in a bad place: I pity them and hope they don't come to harm.

I've never supported the kind of reaction that you get to the military after unpopular wars; no vet deserves to be spat on by the people he fought for. That said, my "support" of the troops does not equate to my support of the administrations greedy mass murder of Iraqis. The troops aren't to blame, they are just following the orders they are given, but they aren't reason enough for me to agree with the war either.

I guess my answer is. Yes, but not the way you meant it, so I'll abstain from voting.

This SICKENS ME why in the world would you not support your troops. Would you people rather have Terrorism all over the world I think you people should not deny the people of Iraq and Afghistan the right to freedom. I think Our ForeFathers are frowning down on us because SOME OF US *hint hint* do not even support our president. I dont care whether you are a democrat, independent, or Republican you should always support and pray for the leaders of your country. I feel sorry for even living in a country where the leaders are frowned upon because of their beliefs even if they are right. If the president decides to go into war we as AMERICANS and other Free People should support our troops without question esspecially if the war is to protect our nation. I say GO GEORGE W. BUSH YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!! May God bless your every decission. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BECAUSE I AM A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i support the troops and what they are doin 100% and i am not even american.i am canadian and support all the brave fighting men who fight and die just to keep you ungrateful bastards alive and free....you people sickin me those are your own country men and you turn your back on them....they fight to keep not only you free but the people of iraq and afgan. free....and i as a member of earth are proud to to live in the presants of these men...you should be proud too....but no that would respectful woundnt it?

I don't support war, I don't support those who start wars, and unfortunately I cannot support those who choose as thier profession the killing of thier fellow man.

I don't wish them any harm, and I hope they all come home safely, and I certainly will not spit on them or stuff like that as though I don't agree with them I understand and respect thier choice. I just cannot support them per se.

This SICKENS ME why in the world would you not support your troops. Would you people rather have Terrorism all over the world I think you people should not deny the people of Iraq and Afghistan the right to freedom. I think Our ForeFathers are frowning down on us because SOME OF US *hint hint* do not even support our president. I dont care whether you are a democrat, independent, or Republican you should always support and pray for the leaders of your country. I feel sorry for even living in a country where the leaders are frowned upon because of their beliefs even if they are right. If the president decides to go into war we as AMERICANS and other Free People should support our troops without question esspecially if the war is to protect our nation. I say GO GEORGE W. BUSH YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!! May God bless your every decission. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BECAUSE I AM A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need more people like you! :)

This SICKENS ME why in the world would you not support your troops. Would you people rather have Terrorism all over the world I think you people should not deny the people of Iraq and Afghistan the right to freedom. I think Our ForeFathers are frowning down on us because SOME OF US *hint hint* do not even support our president. I dont care whether you are a democrat, independent, or Republican you should always support and pray for the leaders of your country. I feel sorry for even living in a country where the leaders are frowned upon because of their beliefs even if they are right. If the president decides to go into war we as AMERICANS and other Free People should support our troops without question esspecially if the war is to protect our nation. I say GO GEORGE W. BUSH YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!! May God bless your every decission. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BECAUSE I AM A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is the type of person who does not deserve to hold an opinion, due to inherent stupidity.

I dont care whether you are a democrat, independent, or Republican you should always support and pray for the leaders of your country. I feel sorry for even living in a country where the leaders are frowned upon because of their beliefs even if they are right. If the president decides to go into war we as AMERICANS and other Free People should support our troops without question esspecially if the war is to protect our nation.

That is the single most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum.

I say GO GEORGE W. BUSH YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!! May God bless your every decission. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BECAUSE I AM A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YESSSSSSS!!!

4 more YEARS...Please GOD give me 4 more Years...
I pray to you GOD...give me 4 more years...and some Pretzels to go...


http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/FLAG-US-ANIMATED.GIF

Actually... ive seen video Footage ...and its hard to say the GIs on the video do not enjoy killing the "enemy".

Have you ever been in a life threatening situation? With your adrenaline pumping, you can count every heartbeat, and your senses are sharper than ever as you know that you are alive right now, but might not be in the next heart beat. You will look, happy, maybe even estatic. You look quite different that night or the next day after you come down and those images are burned into your memory for the rest of your life.

This SICKENS ME why in the world would you not support your troops. Would you people rather have Terrorism all over the world I think you people should not deny the people of Iraq and Afghistan the right to freedom. I think Our ForeFathers are frowning down on us because SOME OF US *hint hint* do not even support our president. I dont care whether you are a democrat, independent, or Republican you should always support and pray for the leaders of your country. I feel sorry for even living in a country where the leaders are frowned upon because of their beliefs even if they are right. If the president decides to go into war we as AMERICANS and other Free People should support our troops without question esspecially if the war is to protect our nation. I say GO GEORGE W. BUSH YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!! May God bless your every decission. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BECAUSE I AM A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Things to remember:

1. When saluting your leader with your unquestioning zeal, the right arm snaps up to a 45 degree angle. Try not to let the wrist go limp, it's a sign of weakness.

2. When saluting, clicking your heals together is considered good form.

3. When marching in unison with like-minded patriots, lift those knees high. High!

4. Your shirt, be it brown or black, should be neatly pressed.

5. Be sure to get your embossed belt-buckle with "God is on our side". Your leaders will be proud of you, and it'll impress all the ladies.

As we know, the vast majority of Generalites do not support America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Barring the politics in the situation, do you "support the troops"?

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?

1. What the heck is an "illeagal war"?
2. Is you mean an "illegal war", then you're wording isn't very accurate. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. They violated it (see the Iraq Survey Group reports. I don't care about them not finding "WMD stockpiles", they found several other violations). And war certainly is a "serious consequence". (EDIT: Yes, I know it isn't actually following procedure to avoid the UN to decide what the "serious consequences" were.)
3. Why are you calling it "America's illeagal war" if it was a liberation of Iraq by a coliation of 30 nations?

These are isolated cases though. Looking at the actual figures of resistance targets, in the vast majority of incidents the coalition forces are targetted. It's summed up rather nicely in this chart-
http://www.lefthook.org/Charts/CSIS.jpg

Correct. The civilians that are being targeted are being targeted by foreign fighters that have come into Iraq. Those foreign firghters are the minority. The majority of insurgents are "home grown" according to US military higher ups and are not attacking their own countrymen, but are in fact attacking the troops.

btw I support the troops but not the war

Edit: by "support the troops" I mean I hope they get thru this mess okay and come home safely and as soon as possible.

i support the troops and what they are doin 100% and i am not even american.i am canadian and support all the brave fighting men who fight and die just to keep you ungrateful bastards alive and free....you people sickin me those are your own country men and you turn your back on them....they fight to keep not only you free but the people of iraq and afgan. free....and i as a member of earth are proud to to live in the presants of these men...you should be proud too....but no that would respectful woundnt it?



You people suck!

1. What the heck is an "illeagal war"?
2. Is you mean an "illegal war", then you are mistaken. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. They violated it (see the Iraq Survey Group reports). And war certainly is a "serious consequence".

You're right, except that the US is not the UN, and had no authority to unilateraly decide what "serious consequences" was.

2. Is you mean an "illegal war", then you are mistaken. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. They violated it (see the Iraq Survey Group reports). And war certainly is a "serious consequence".
Yet the U.N. did not authorize the war. The U.N. has to review the evidence and then decide whether or not a war is necessary. They did not find reason to go to war. Ergo, the war was illegal.

I recognized two REAL AMERICANS in this discussion so the rest of you dont bother me what you say. You are already lost to the great AMERICAN family. GOD BLESS AMERICA! :D

I don't support war, I don't support those who start wars, and unfortunately I cannot support those who choose as thier profession the killing of thier fellow man.

I don't wish them any harm, and I hope they all come home safely, and I certainly will not spit on them or stuff like that as though I don't agree with them I understand and respect thier choice. I just cannot support them per se.
Well said.

This is the type of person who does not deserve to hold an opinion, due to inherent stupidity.
Recognize yourself in there a little?

I do not "support the troops". This is whole "iraq war" is wrong! Declare peace now!

Yet the U.N. did not authorize the war. The U.N. has to review the evidence and then decide whether or not a war is necessary. They did not find reason to go to war. Ergo, the war was illegal.
True. Which is why I don't like Bush's planning. But I am annoyed that the UN inspection teams didn't find any violations because Iraq hid them all (also documented by the Iraq Survey Group). (EDIT: No, I am not saying they had stockpiles of WMDs. I'm just saying they had violations.)

yeah everybody's beliefs are important.

I recognized two REAL AMERICANS in this discussion so the rest of you dont bother me what you say.

Thank you for the compliment. I'm proud not to be American.

You are already lost to the great AMERICAN family.

Thankfully.

GOD BLESS AMERICA! :D

You blaspheme against your wizard in the sky.

as i said you dont bother me.

as i said you dont bother me.
I'm sure you don't bother anyone either. ;)

OmegaStar, you talk about your beloved founding fathers (a bunch of rich white slave owners who didn't want to pay their taxes, if you ask me) being ashamed of some people not supporting your president, then you criticise other people's right to freedom of speech and debate ("yeah everybody's beliefs are important.").

For shame. tut tut tut.

Things to remember:

1. When saluting your leader with your unquestioning zeal, the right arm snaps up to a 45 degree angle. Try not to let the wrist go limp, it's a sign of weakness.

2. When saluting, clicking your heals together is considered good form.

3. When marching in unison with like-minded patriots, lift those knees high. High!

4. Your shirt, be it brown or black, should be neatly pressed.

5. Be sure to get your embossed belt-buckle with "God is on our side". Your leaders will be proud of you, and it'll impress all the ladies.
Things to remember:

1. When bending over backwards to appease the toerrists, it helps if you drive to your protest in an electric car, not a an SUV.

2. When protesting this "illegal war" it is good form to lie as much as possible about the President, the War in Iraq, and your fellow citizens, the American Soldier.

3. Take all your cues from moron.org, Airhead America, and the racist pukes in the democrat party.

4. Be sure your facists ideas are in synch with your unwashed boyfriend, I would hate to seee you to have a fight.

5. Be sure you insult everyone who does not believe the same as you, because "acceptance of a person is acceptance of their beliefs".


Stop being a bigot. You can disagree with someone without being an uncouth bigot.

man o man you are really messed up i never said anything about denying rights. is this guy serious.

As we know, the vast majority of Generalites do not support America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Barring the politics in the situation, do you "support the troops"?

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?

Most certainly I do cheer for them and I strongly support them. It isn't an illegal war.

man o man you are really messed up i never said anything about denying rights. is this guy serious.
Are you serious about saying that nobody should criticise the president?

Things to remember:

*snip*

Stop being a bigot. You can disagree with someone without being an uncouth bigot.


Pot Calling the Kettle black....

I say GO GEORGE W. BUSH YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!! May God bless your every decission. I SUPPORT THE TROOPS BECAUSE I AM A TRUE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YESSSSSSS!!!

4 more YEARS...Please GOD give me 4 more Years...
GOD Bless Americaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
GOD bless George W. Bush.
I pray to you GOD...give me 4 more years...and some Pretzels to go...


http://www.digitrends.com/bhm-Directory/us_flag_animated.gif

no i just wrote that in to make it look proffessional. of course you can criticize a little but to label him as a person who is evil is wrong. whoever the president is you should follow him because he is your leader.

no i just wrote that in to make it look proffessional. of course you can criticize a little but to label him as a person who is evil is wrong. whoever the president is you should follow him because he is your leader.
It hardly looked professional. It seemed more like the rantings of a nationalist. So you're allowed to criticise, but not too much? Why shouldn't you be allowed to say he's evil? What if you didn't vote for him- why do you have to accept him as your leader?

no i just wrote that in to make it look proffessional. of course you can criticize a little but to label him as a person who is evil is wrong. whoever the president is you should follow him because he is your leader.


http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Adolf_Hitler.jpg

FOLLOW THE LEADER!

no i just wrote that in to make it look proffessional. of course you can criticize a little but to label him as a person who is evil is wrong. whoever the president is you should follow him because he is your leader.
Why?

if you didnt vote you have no right to criticize any leader no matter what.

http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/Art/follow.gif

yay!

Okay, I admit, I have not (nor am likely to) read this topic. I did read the first post of it, and have the following things to say.

1) The war is not an 'illegal' war, there have been no violations of the Geneva (sp?) Convention on the US's side, and as such, it remains legal (though, the other side at times seems a bit off)

2) I have supported my troops since I was little, always have, always will. Every American should be proud to stand up next to the men and women who put their lives on the line to secure the liberty of our country and our allies.

3) Pretend I had somethin else important to say, as I forgot it about half-way thru typing my post... I'll type it if I remember it. EDIT: I remember it! Peace kills... we have lost more soldiers in maintaining the peace in various conflicts than in active war. Look at Afganistan and Iraq, both cases, we lost many more keeping peace than we did in the orrigional invasion... and dont make me even bring up Vietnam, I am sure most of you remember it well enough on your own.

One of my all time favorite bumper stickers:

"Germans Supported Their Troops Too."

http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Adolf_Hitler.jpg

FOLLOW THE LEADER!

Jawohl, mein Führer!

Are you serious about saying that nobody should criticise the president?

Yeah, I am. I'm a Republican. I support the Conflict in Iraq. I think Bush is doing what he thinks best. We are not there to hurt the Iraqui people. We are there to help them from a crazy dictator who killedhis own people for fun. This man was a danger to the free world. He supported terrorists.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

YESSSSSSS!!!

4 more YEARS...Please GOD give me 4 more Years...
GOD Bless Americaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
GOD bless George W. Bush.
I pray to you GOD...give me 4 more years...and some Pretzels to go...


http://www.digitrends.com/bhm-Directory/us_flag_animated.gif
Too bad you can't have them.... it's under 4 years now until GWB has to leave. :)

if you didnt vote you have no right to criticize any leader no matter what.
What if you feel that none of the candidates satisfy your criteria for what a president should be? How about if you deliberately spoil your ballot? Do you still have no right to criticise?

Comparing bush to hitler is just hideously immature...

I do think we are doing good to help the Iraqi people.

One of my all time favorite bumper stickers:

"Germans Supported Their Troops Too."

Why don't they anymore? :confused:

if you didnt vote you have no right to criticize any leader no matter what.You do have a "right" because this is a republican system and whether you voted or not the government still rules over you.

http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Adolf_Hitler.jpg

FOLLOW THE LEADER!


Without question!!! You can have critisizms, but only very little. Even if you don't believe in what he is doing, he IS your leader so do what he says!!!

i was being sarcastic about it being professional. you are right on the money Greater Mactopia way to go.

Yeah, I am. I'm a Republican...


That explains it...

http://www.web.apc.org/~ara/Art/follow.gif

yay!



lol yay!

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?
I don't think I would go for either extreme. basically, I hope none of them die, but I also hope that they don't kill anyone...

Comparing bush to hitler is just hideously immature...

I do think we are doing good to help the Iraqi people.
You think you're doing good, but why should we be?
Emotions aside, why should we help?

I don't support the war. I don't support the president in his insistance on fighting a war which was never our business in the first place. I don't support the troops who fight the war for him, because if they refused to do so, there would be no war.

I also don't spit on them. They made their choices to enlist, to follow orders, to support this war, and while I intensely disagree with those choices, they are theirs to make. I would prefer that all of them come home safe and alive, but I would prefer also that the people they are over there shooting at be safe and alive too.

Your poll is difficult to answer, as there is no middle ground between love them and hate them.

Yeah, I am. I'm a Republican.
Well done?
I support the Conflict in Iraq. I think Bush is doing what he thinks best.
For himself, for his friends, for his bank accounts, yes. For the good of humanity? No.

We are not there to hurt the Iraqui people.
Ah so that's just a happy coincidence?
We are there to help them from a crazy dictator who killedhis own people for fun.
Thats funny I thought you were in there to get WMDs. No wait, was it to stop terrorists? Or was it for liberating women? Hmmmm, who can tell, eh?

This man was a danger to the free world.
We have a free world now?
He supported terrorists.
There's really no evidence for that
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
Again I'm going to have to say no.

Comparing bush to hitler is just hideously immature...

I do think we are doing good to help the Iraqi people.


Think of what "good" Hitler did for the Russian People
http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/images/19091a.jpg

I don't support the war. I don't support the president in his insistance on fighting a war which was never our business in the first place. I don't support the troops who fight the war for him, because if they refused to do so, there would be no war.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.

Think of what "good" Hitler did for the Russian People

I know what Hitler did. And I know Bush is no Hitler.

SNIP
2) The military in the US has a long and inglorius history of being used in foreign wars to further America's influence and control in the world. The US has never really had to defend it's own soil in the last 150 years because it spends an awful lot of the time occupying other countries and setting up military bases on foreign soil. Is it any wonder that the locals may at times resent the fact that a foreign power has soldiers in their country?
/SNIPThe last 150 years? I think that figure is a bit off, do you recall the second world war? I seem to recall there were Japanese soldiers invading and/or blowing up several bases on American soil... December 7th, 1941 really stands out in my oppinion. I see that as being almost 64 years ago, not 150. And I didn't want to bring it up, but I seem to recall quite a few other attacks on our soil from outside sources. World Trade Center bombings 1 and 2. The first was a truck bomb, the second was a pair of aircraft. As I recall, that was in the last 20 years no?

150 years? I dont agree.

(Oh, and I changed my mind, I am reading history now)

Things to remember:

1. When bending over backwards to appease the toerrists, it helps if you drive to your protest in an electric car, not a an SUV.

I don't own an SUV. I own a Volvo. I'll be sure to get some lube for the bending over part.

2. When protesting this "illegal war" it is good form to lie as much as possible about the President, the War in Iraq, and your fellow citizens, the American Soldier.

Why lie about the Commander-in-Chimp, when the truth works much better? You know, it might be best to stop worshiping soldiers as heroes. They're not. They're trained as the physical arm of domestic and foreign policy, not as mythical 'defenders of freedom and America'.

Fact 1) It's a volunteer military

Fact 2) Once you sign up, you belong to Uncle Sam, and you do as you're told by the government. If you don't like that, Levenworth has comfy cells waiting.

Fact 3) The US government is not interested in promoting freedom (that's pablum to feed the masses). If it were really interested in doing so, it would have taken nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, North Korea and other who have far worse humn rights records than Iraq. Notice that the your government says nothing about how most of these behave?


3. Take all your cues from moron.org, Airhead America, and the racist pukes in the democrat party.

I won't dignify this with a response, since I'm neither an American, nor a supporter of the Democrats. Why would I support either party of an intrinsically corrupt government?

4. Be sure your facists ideas are in synch with your unwashed boyfriend, I would hate to seee you to have a fight.

5. Be sure you insult everyone who does not believe the same as you, because "acceptance of a person is acceptance of their beliefs".


Stop being a bigot. You can disagree with someone without being an uncouth bigot.

Sarcasm and black humour do not a bigot make.

Only a fool believes a government or leader is above reproach, and shouldn't be criticized. If people in America believe this, then democracy is truely dead.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.


Gee whiz...I forgot that the Terrorists were Iraqi.

There's really no evidence for that

There is actually some evidence... . One second, I'll post it.

EDIT:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.

Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.

In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

If you can prove them wrong, go ahead.

lol yay!
Telegram for you.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.
Chill out with the capslock. Was there any evidence that saddam was behind 9/11? No. Is there evidence to show that Osama and Saddam got on or supported each other? No. Was there any justification for this blatant act of imperialism? NO!

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.

omg - are you really suggesting that Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11?

this is not imperialism forget it you people are all messed up. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Most certainly I do cheer for them and I strongly support them. It isn't an illegal war.
It is an illegal war, in violation of UN Resolution 1441, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution. The problem is that no one is going to prosecute the US. This one is a gimme.

It is an illegal war, in violation of UN Resolution 1441, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution. The problem is that no one is going to prosecute the US. This one is a gimme.
It's only an illegal war in the eyes of leftist fools.

It is an illegal war, in violation of UN Resolution 1441, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the US Constitution. The problem is that no one is going to prosecute the US. This one is a gimme.

blah blah blah blah.. illegal this illegal that... it is not violation of the UN resolution 1441 (merely following it), the UN charter, geneva conventions or the US constitution. Nice try on the left wing talking point. It doesn't fly with me. I don't believe the lies that the left spreads around.

neither do i the left is all messed up

CanuckHeaven, I wanted to send you a TG, but for some reason I seem unable to locate your nation for that purpose.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.
What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? And you really don't need to use all capitals.

Three right-wing posts in-a-row on NS! What a rare sight! :)

this is not imperialism forget it you people are all messed up. :mad: :mad: :mad:


im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Hmmmm... not imperialism, ehhh?

im·pe·ri·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr--lzm)
n.
1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

Hmmmm... not imperialism, ehhh?
Yea, it's not imperialism.

You know what? I'd rather support the troops, then you people who have the tendency to cover up the reality.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.

Have you not been paying ANY attention? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden actively and vocally disliked Sadam, and was critical of his non-religious based government. Bin Laden wanted Sadam removed from office, and made many statements to that effect.

As if that was not enough to prove the lack of connection, the 9/11 Commission ALSO came to the conclusion that there was no link between the terrorists and Iraq. Bush himself has admitted this fact.

As to our business... the United Nations was dealing with the supposed WMD issue, and their expert weapons inspectors said repeatedly that there WERE no WMDs there. This fact has been born out by the US invaders not finding a single one. So the "War on Terror" which never was actually a war on the terrorists who hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and which became a war on Iraq because of their WMDs, which never actually existed, which has become a war to free Iraq from oppression, which is a joke because the government they have voted in is even MORE repressive, was not our business in the first place. Against the terrorists, we were always fighting in the wrong place and we knew it. Against Iraq's WMDs it was always the UN's business, and they were handling it correctly before we took over. And I have not heard of one Iraqi citizen who came here and petitioned us to help them fight oppression. Not one. Not even a letter to the editor from one saying "gosh wouldn't it be nice if the US came along to help?"

So no, it was not our business.

I am not in support of what they are doing, but I have respect for them. How can I not have respect for a person willing to go through that? It would make no sense for me to hate them simply because I hate the war they are fighting in, because I know not all of them actually want to be there. "Don't hate the player, hate the game." If I should hate anybody, it should be the ones who sent those people overe there.

blah blah blah blah.. illegal this illegal that... it is not violation of the UN resolution 1441 (merely following it), the UN charter, geneva conventions or the US constitution. Nice try on the left wing talking point. It doesn't fly with me. I don't believe the lies that the left spreads around.
Very enriching post. Very illuminating. I am glad to know of what doesn't fly with you. I don't know if I could've gone on another moment without knowing.

Wow, this changes my whole outlook, it does. You are a masterful debator and I am but a lowly fly in your presence, sir. I shall now go lick my wounds while considering how best to display my obeisance to your superior intellect, wit, vocabulary, and everything.

Very enriching post. Very illuminating. I am glad to know of what doesn't fly with you. I don't know if I could've gone on another moment without knowing.

Wow, this changes my whole outlook, it does. You are a masterful debator and I am but a lowly fly in your presence, sir. I shall now go lick my wounds while considering how best to display my obeisance to your superior intellect, wit, vocabulary, and everything.

Oh, I'm just against people who hate common sense. That's all. You really need to shut up and stop harassing me.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.

Since when did Iraq and 9/11 become connected? 9/11 is a poor excuse for invading nations the government labels a threat.

If you believe everything that the news says about Iraq, i suggest that you talk to someone who was there. News reports have very little to do with reality.

I do believe that we are should have taken of this back in desert storm.

Does it matter if its legal anymore. Once again the west in its vast and seemingly boundless arogance has marched eastward again convinced that the promise democracy will right the ill of these countrys. I am ashamed of the way Britiain has acted. Everyone knew this would be vietnam 2, but we were given this 45 minutes crap and we bout it. IRAQ COULDNT EVEN AFFORD CLEAN WATER WHERE THE FUCK WOULD THEY FIND A MISSLE!?! And now we are in a war we cannot hope to win, as in vietnam its not those who inflict the most damage its those who endure it that will win, and we will not win that war. But we cant pull out because we are in to deep, we fucked this place up so we are politicaly obligated to fight on. It is vietnam 2 hav no elussions about it, we will lose certainly the US loss's are gonna get worse i fear the south will go down hill soon and scottish troops will suffer, and even if the new parliament survives the immediate future the only way to keep the peace in the face of the terrorists is to remove the democratic freedom that were fought for

Denile.

Does it matter if its legal anymore. Once again the west in its vast and seemingly boundless arogance has marched eastward again convinced that the promise democracy will right the ill of these countrys. I am ashamed of the way Britiain has acted. Everyone knew this would be vietnam 2, but we were given this 45 minutes crap and we bout it. IRAQ COULDNT EVEN AFFORD CLEAN WATER WHERE THE FUCK WOULD THEY FIND A MISSLE!?! And now we are in a war we cannot hope to win, as in vietnam its not those who inflict the most damage its those who endure it that will win, and we will not win that war. But we cant pull out because we are in to deep, we fucked this place up so we are politicaly obligated to fight on. It is vietnam 2 hav no elussions about it, we will lose certainly the US loss's are gonna get worse i fear the south will go down hill soon and scottish troops will suffer, and even if the new parliament survives the immediate future the only way to keep the peace in the face of the terrorists is to remove the democratic freedom that were fought for

Iraq couldn't afford it? Hmm.. how many billions did Saddam have from the oil for food program? How many billions was he able to steal? I heard $22 billion. We didn't fuck up the place. Saddam did. We won't lose. This is a completely different situation then Vietnam. The atmosphere is totally different. To compare it to Vietnam shows how you have nothing as far as debating goes.

Denile.


Denial?

no i just wrote that in to make it look proffessional.and I pissed on yous Milk-shake...to make it taste better. :rolleyes:

Trying to make as much sense as the New Village Idiot. :D

Denile.

It's "denial" and that's located in "deEgypt".

Victory to the resistance.
While I feel bad for the working-class soldiers over there who get killed we have to remember that they are still there as agents of imperialism and are therefor legitimate targets for the Iraqis
You arrogant little fascist.

What resistance, that is, which one? Militant Jihadists that execute captured prisoners on tape? Other Jihadists that leave carbombs to explode at random times in the street? Simple thugs that machine-gun police stations trying to bring some law back to the cities? Or ex-Baathists responsible for carpet bombing entire villiages because of their ethnicity, and in at least one instance that I know of, gassing an entire town? Choose your own bedfellows but I root for the GIs.

"Agents of imperialism." Your might as well say a man or woman joins up to try and serve their country and is then used and abused by a government elected after the fact is a red-eyed demon hellbent on driving up oil prices. Those men have families and people who love them. "Feeling bad, BUT" does NOT cut it. People like you don't really deserve to be able to say such things - your lucky there are others who are at least willing to fight for you.

The war was needless. It was started by the governments. Fight the governments, fight the terrorists (how else can you describe someone who would blow up women and children to get at one Marine?) but don't bash the footsoldiers who will have to live with this war long after the world has forgotten.

Or, try and equate American 'atrocities' with those of the insurgency; surely, the spartan treatment of 500 people in Gitmo (most of whom will be transferred to a new facility with a view of the ocean, unlimited showers and food - treatment above and beyond anything a street criminal could expect), who have all been collecting dossiers in the CIAs filing cabinets for some time, and fully deserve to be there, or the homoerotic molestations committed by a few low down prison guards who have been charged in full military courts for their actions, compares to the beheadings and dismemberment executed by the all noble resistance.

CanuckHeaven, I wanted to send you a TG, but for some reason I seem unable to locate your nation for that purpose.
Hey Dobbs...I don't know why that is the case and I don't know how to fix it. I guess I should go to Moderation and find out why when I get a chance.

Oh, I'm just against people who hate common sense. That's all. You really need to shut up and stop harassing me.

don't hate yourself.

You shoudln't tell people to shut up. that's not nice.

If youw anted to refute teh argument you could have at least offered some evidence to back yoruself up rather than just sai "no it isn't" as if you somehow won the argument.

Iraq couldn't afford it? Hmm.. how many billions did Saddam have from the oil for food program? How many billions was he able to steal? I heard $22 billion. We didn't fuck up the place. Saddam did. We won't lose. This is a completely different situation then Vietnam. The atmosphere is totally different. To compare it to Vietnam shows how you have nothing as far as debating goes.


So, smart guy, how do you plan on 'winning' this? Stay the course?

Good luck with that.

No they were not legitamte targets, they did nothing. But the sword cuts both ways.


Translation: They are not legitimate, however I am willing to overlook this, continue the anti-american rhetoric.

Since when did Iraq and 9/11 become connected? 9/11 is a poor excuse for invading nations the government labels a threat.


So many people have asked him that, and he won't even acknowledge the questioners. I think this might actually be George Bush Jr!

don't hate yourself.

You shoudln't tell people to shut up. that's not nice.

If youw anted to refute teh argument you could have at least offered some evidence to back yoruself up rather than just sai "no it isn't" as if you somehow won the argument.

oh nice one. How original.

I'm telling him to stop sending me telegrams and stop harassing me.

I do provide plenty of evidence. And if Saddam couldn't afford anything.. what about this:

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031003211112.3otbshze.html

It's "denial" and that's located in "deEgypt".You're funny, and you made a clever jest out of my ridiculous misspelling. Continue.

It's only an illegal war in the eyes of leftist fools.
Well is Richard Perle (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1120-01.htm) a leftist fool?

How about the UK Government (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf)? Oh thats right, they are leftist and a bit foolish for joining the US in Iraq. :eek:

And of course, I am sure that you love Kofi Anann (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm)?

As to our business... the United Nations was dealing with the supposed WMD issue, and their expert weapons inspectors said repeatedly that there WERE no WMDs there.
Read more closely: "no stockpiles of WMDs".

What the Iraq Survey Group did find:

Article: http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
Information on the author: http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=displaystaffbio&authorid=47128

oh nice one. How original.

I'm telling him to stop sending me telegrams and stop harassing me.

I do provide plenty of evidence. And if Saddam couldn't afford anything.. what about this:

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031003211112.3otbshze.html

Whats original? Asking you to actually offer proof for your misguided statements?

And what does north Korea fleecing Saddam out of $10 mill have to do with anything?

Whats original? Asking you to actually offer proof for your misguided statements?

And what does north Korea fleecing Saddam out of $10 mill have to do with anything?

My misguided statements? The only misguided statements around here are from the leftists. I don't ever have misguided statements.

Shows he was paying someone for weapons.

I don't own an SUV. I own a Volvo. I'll be sure to get some lube for the bending over part.



Why lie about the Commander-in-Chimp, when the truth works much better? You know, it might be best to stop worshiping soldiers as heroes. They're not. They're trained as the physical arm of domestic and foreign policy, not as mythical 'defenders of freedom and America'.

Fact 1) It's a volunteer military

Fact 2) Once you sign up, you belong to Uncle Sam, and you do as you're told by the government. If you don't like that, Levenworth has comfy cells waiting.

Fact 3) The US government is not interested in promoting freedom (that's pablum to feed the masses). If it were really interested in doing so, it would have taken nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, North Korea and other who have far worse humn rights records than Iraq. Notice that the your government says nothing about how most of these behave?




I won't dignify this with a response, since I'm neither an American, nor a supporter of the Democrats. Why would I support either party of an intrinsically corrupt government?



Sarcasm and black humour do not a bigot make.

Only a fool believes a government or leader is above reproach, and shouldn't be criticized. If people in America believe this, then democracy is truely dead.

Ya know what? Where are you from. Are you involved in this war? Were you bombed for no apparrent reason except that "The Devils of the West stand for everything that we appose? Freedom, Women's rights, schools, Free Speech? So I only have one thing to say and I think the smiley covers it!>:upyours:

1. The "Iraqi insurgence" are mostly from places OUTSIDE of IRAQ. The vast majority of Iraqis support the US effort to keep their nation together after removing a homocidal dictator.

2. Most Iraqi civillian cassualties were either caught in the crossfire or deliberately attacked by terrorists.

3. Civil War is not good. The US learned that the hard way 140-144 years ago.

4. You are in combat. The enemy starts firing at you. They want you dead. You can either paint a target on your chest and run towards them, get shot running away, or blast their heads off. Your main focus is staying alive. In fact, that's what the military is demending you do. You have no other choices. What do you do?

5. You joined the reserve during the first Gulf War. Second one comes along and you are called into duty again. It's either risk getting killed in one year of combat or choose between getting raped ir killed during your new life in prison. What do you do.

6. I know most of you aren't American. Most of you will never support any of Bush's decisions. Some of you probably even laughed at him when he sent air-craft carriers to aid the tsunami victims months ago. I'm sure you know more about Bush than Americans do. :rolleyes:

7. Bush is not Hitler. Hitler sent millions into death camps. Hitler invaded other nations just to send more people into death camps. How many people did Bush order gassed? Sadaam is more comparable to Hitler than Bush is. :eek: Shocking, isn't it, you biased pigs.

8. Iraq is a seperate nation that just needs the Us's help until it can defend itself. It is not pwrt of the US. Sure, it has US embasies. So does France. So does Iran. Are those part of the US?

9. The Iraqis are joining their police force in large numbers. They risk getting shot. They know they are targets now. They know the terrorists see imaginary targets on them. They go and help their fellow citizens against the Syrian, Jordanian, etc. terrorists. Notice how I didn't say Iraqi insurgence. That's because i don't care about the few hundred remaining Bathists.

10. When talking about the war, remember: Supporting the troops' right to live doesn't mean supporting Bush. That shocking fact isn't biased.

Ya know what? Where are you from. Are you involved in this war? Were you bombed for no apparrent reason except that "The Devils of the West stand for everything that we appose? Freedom, Women's rights, schools, Free Speech? So I only have one thing to say and I think the smiley covers it!>:upyours:

You think they bomb because they hate our freedom?! *snicker* That's not why they do it.

Read more closely: "no stockpiles of WMDs".

What the Iraq Survey Group did find:
]


Random plans that can be downloaded off the internet, experiments that somebody thinks might have happened, attempts that didn't work and connections that were not made? Chemicals under a kitchen sink? Unsuccessful bids to buy materials? THIS justifies war? Wow. Seems to me from that list that Iraq was doing a good job of defeating itself, since it doesn't look like they were actually able to complete anything.

My misguided statements?

yes, you show nothing but blind nationalism and offer up baseless statements that have nothing to back them up. I win and you = ignored.

Is there an OBVIOUS connection between Sadaam and Bin Laden? No, I will admit that. What the connection is (and a few people will refuse to hear it comming from an ultra-con like myself) is that both are terrorists. Before Desert Storm, how many of his own people did Sadaam kill? The issue at hand for him was not really 'whether or not he had WMD's,' but the fact that he refused to say whether or not he had WMD's. Had he allowed the UN investigators in as usual, there never would have been an invasion of Iraq.

The point of the war on terror is to show to terrorists (and I know some people call them freedom fighters depending on their POV) that they will no longer recieve quater in most parts of the world. If you want to fight for freedom, do it in a non-violent way. Gandi? Martin Luther King Jr.? The city of Danzig? Did / do any of them resort to violence to meet their ends? No, they used / use civil disobedience and politics.

Was Sadaam a bit annoyed at the first coliltion into his country? I am sure. Should he have been so thick-headded and basically told the UN 'Ha ha, I have no weapons, but you cant come in and check anyway'... no, he really shouldn't have. Granted I personally dont like the man in charge (no-one jump on me, I am conservitive and not a republican) but he is certainly better than some other choices out there. Futhermore, I dont think democracy will work in many places... in Oman and UAE (A monarchy and an oligarchy respectively) for example, they are fearful of democracy. They support us freeing the Iraqis from Sadaam, though they dont like that we want a democracy, and certainly dont want our imput in their governments.

So if they support our troops, why can we? Like I said, I dont overly like the man in charge of my country, but I did have to vote for him as I prefer him over others. I am not happy with how he is running the war, but the war was neccicary. Should we turn our backs on our troops and spit on them when they return like we did in Vietnam? Of course not. This is why we study history in school, so it wont repeat itself. Dont let our men and women who are putting their very lives on the line for a better way of life for people they never met feel unwelcome, hope and pray (if you do, I am agnostic) for them to return safely and expediently; but certainly dont shun them.

snip
It is an illegal war, in violation of UN Resolution 1441, the UN Charter
/snip


Since when should ANYTHING the UN states be taken seriously? The organization is completely corrupt and is in serious need of a massive reform. Honestly, here they are railing against the war in Iraq, while there's a genocide going on in Sudan that it's doing absolutely nothing about. Just like it did absolutely nothing about the Rwanda genocide. And don't even get me started on the Oil for Food program...

As for my opinions on the war... I don't necessarily support the war itself, but I sure as hell support our men and women over there, because while all these idiots in the US and abroad are sitting on their asses and doing nothing but complaining about the war, those brave men and women are risking their lives everyday for a war that many people question the motives of. For that, I give them credit, and my whole-hearted support.

yes, you show nothing but blind nationalism and offer up baseless statements that have nothing to back them up. I win and you = ignored.

You're full of it. My support for this war was more for personal reasons, and not the WMD issue. In fact it was never about WMDs for me.

1. The "Iraqi insurgence" are mostly from places OUTSIDE of IRAQ. The vast majority of Iraqis support the US effort to keep their nation together after removing a homocidal dictator.

I'd like to see where you got this data from. our own generals say otherwise. They say that the foreign fighters are the ones targetting civilians but the majority of the estimates 200,000 insurgents are attacking coalition troops.

I'll provide my evidence after you provide yours.

Random plans that can be downloaded off the internet, experiments that somebody thinks might have happened, attempts that didn't work and connections that were not made? Chemicals under a kitchen sink? Unsuccessful bids to buy materials? THIS justifies war? Wow. Seems to me from that list that Iraq was doing a good job of defeating itself, since it doesn't look like they were actually able to complete anything.
Actually read the article and look at how many "pesticides" the coliation found.

They remember this part of the article:

"Pesticides are the key elements in the chemical-agent arena," Hanson says. "In fact, the general pesticide chemical formula (organophosphate) is the 'grandfather' of modern-day nerve agents."

[QUOTE=Kadmark]Since when should ANYTHING the UN states be taken seriously? The organization is completely corrupt and is in serious need of a massive reform. [QUOTE]
I have to agree with that the UN is out of date and very corrupt.

Since when should ANYTHING the UN states be taken seriously? The organization is completely corrupt and is in serious need of a massive reform. Honestly, here they are railing against the war in Iraq, while there's a genocide going on in Sudan that it's doing absolutely nothing about. Just like it did absolutely nothing about the Rwanda genocide. And don't even get me started on the Oil for Food program...


But you don't see any corruption in the US govt? If you don't then open your eyes. If you do then why take anything they say seriously?

I'd like to see where you got this data from. our own generals say otherwise. They say that the foreign fighters are the ones targetting civilians but the majority of the estimates 200,000 insurgents are attacking coalition troops.

Umm.. I think you added a zero or two in that number.

I'll provide my evidence after you provide yours.

Nice and convenient.

i admit there is some corruption but it is nowhere as corrupt as the UN. if it is not give me evidence to back up your story.

Umm.. I think you added a zero or two in that number.



Nice and convenient.


Funny way of saying that you have no evidence to back up your story.

Funny way of saying that you have no evidence to back up your story.

Leftists. Accuse people of having no evidence, when you can't be bothered providing any of your own. :headbang:

Since I don't know them I don't really care whether they live or die.

now that sounds evil to me.

blah blah blah blah.. illegal this illegal that... it is not violation of the UN resolution 1441 (merely following it), the UN charter, geneva conventions or the US constitution. Nice try on the left wing talking point. It doesn't fly with me. I don't believe the lies that the left spreads around.
Perhaps you should do some research on the subject rather than hurling out defamatory remarks. I don't think calling people a "liar" is acceptable, especially since you have offered no honest rebuttal to prove what is up until now, just your opinion.

now that sounds evil to me.

http://www.terboted.com/jpg/bush_evil.jpg

Evil to you...hmmmmm.

I support the troops, I have friends and family overe there fighting but I would support the troops even if I didn't, Govenments go to war, soldiers don't

Perhaps you should do some research on the subject rather than hurling out defamatory remarks. I don't think calling people a "liar" is acceptable, especially since you have offered no honest rebuttal to prove what is up until now, just your opinion.

Actually uo should formulate a proper argument. I'm tired of people who cry about the same old issues but never provide anything.

That poster is BS. Propaganda.

what is the reason you Extreme Liberals hate him is it because he is not afraid to follow his beliefs like GOD. i think that is just plain wrong. shame on you.

http://www.terboted.com/jpg/bush_evil.jpg

Evil to you...hmmmmm.




LOL!!!! Yes, Bush is the epitome of all things wicked :rolleyes:

Okay i guess I am not going to get any proof from anyone that the majority of insurgents are from outside Iraq. No surprise there.

I'll just try to shut you up completely about it with some information that is contrary to your Republican talking points.

Examining the Makeup of the Iraqi Insurgency (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4776318)

'Insurgents' Are Mostly Home-Grown Iraqis, U.S. Military Says (http://www.covenantnews.com/politics/archives/007082.html)

Majority of Iraqi "insurgents" never target civilians (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3501109)

More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6962.htm)

what is the reason you Extreme Liberals hate him is it because he is not afraid to follow his beliefs like GOD. i think that is just plain wrong. shame on you.

Look, I'm atheist.. but I have my other reasons to support the war (humanitarian). I never used the WMD issue. Whether Bush believes in god or not, is not at issue for me.

LOL!!!! Yes, Bush is the epitome of all things wicked :rolleyes:


Well, isnt he? Is there anything good he has done in his stolen terms? Anything at all?

Examining the Makeup of the Iraqi Insurgency (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4776318)

NPR? Are you serious?

'Insurgents' Are Mostly Home-Grown Iraqis, U.S. Military Says (http://www.covenantnews.com/politics/archives/007082.html)

"September 29, 2004"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050814/pl_afp/usiraqiransyria_050814191957

Majority of Iraqi "insurgents" never target civilians (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3501109)

Ok. That source is just BS. The most biased source you could of brought up. In fact you know what the democraticunderground is? It isn't a source. It is a forum.

And what is or isn't "for you" is undoubtedly what is or isn't for everybody. Everybody who matters, at least. :rolleyes:

Again, stop posting spam.

Well, isnt he? Is there anything good he has done in his stolen terms? Anything at all?



Stolen terms? Lol to that too! Yes, if you're willing to recognize the good, then there is plenty of it.

Maybe I should just stop posting... no-one seems to read my posts! \=Þ

Am I on the right of center? Yes.
Am I religious? Heck no.
Do I need to have a god come in to back me up? No.

Is President Bush and many others religious? Surely, and they can call on whatever divine influence they want to, reguardless if it is Yahweh, Budda, Ra, Krishner, Allah, Set, Thor... (you get the idea)

I'm a pacifist. I do not understand anyone using violent behaviour at all unless it is completely defensive, like the techniques used in Aikido and the philosophies surrounding the Martial Art.

So when you consider that if no-one was willing to use violence there wouldn't be any troops to fight the corrupt wars of the opressive leaders found in many countries; my only conclusion is to not support any troops at all as it is unlogical to cut short contingency by ignoring what/who they fight for and what the consequences may be.

Then when you also consider that a lot of troops are ignorant about a lot of the polictics (just as many civilians are, which is a root of why people join the armed forces), you can't really use their enthusiasm as a basis for them to go into a conflict. But unless there is a conflict of some sort (even if it isn't totally a military issue, the military may act as an unfair component to someone's arguement) there is really no reason or need for any troops, which may shead light on why most Generals see conflict as a viable course of action so often (being that they are not the ones fighting the battles directly, but if no-one is fighting they are not needed in any fashion).

In the end when see a group of troopers, I just see boys acting like what they think men should act like. However it's only result is; men acting like boys.

Stolen terms? Lol to that too! Yes, if you're willing to recognize the good, then there is plenty of it.

Not enough for you to mention specifically, evidently.

Okay i guess I am not going to get any proof from anyone that the majority of insurgents are from outside Iraq. No surprise there.

I'll just try to shut you up completely about it with some information that is contrary to your Republican talking points.

Examining the Makeup of the Iraqi Insurgency (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4776318)

'Insurgents' Are Mostly Home-Grown Iraqis, U.S. Military Says (http://www.covenantnews.com/politics/archives/007082.html)

Majority of Iraqi "insurgents" never target civilians (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3501109)

More Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. forces than by insurgents, data shows (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6962.htm)



Did you just source DU when discussing the war? That would be like sourcing Aryan Nation when discussing minorities :rolleyes:

I support the soldiers,
Despite the fact that I think their being used as mercenaries by the oil companies.

1. The "Iraqi insurgence" are mostly from places OUTSIDE of IRAQ. The vast majority of Iraqis support the US effort to keep their nation together after removing a homocidal dictator.

2. Most Iraqi civillian cassualties were either caught in the crossfire or deliberately attacked by terrorists.

3. Civil War is not good. The US learned that the hard way 140-144 years ago.

4. You are in combat. The enemy starts firing at you. They want you dead. You can either paint a target on your chest and run towards them, get shot running away, or blast their heads off. Your main focus is staying alive. In fact, that's what the military is demending you do. You have no other choices. What do you do?

5. You joined the reserve during the first Gulf War. Second one comes along and you are called into duty again. It's either risk getting killed in one year of combat or choose between getting raped ir killed during your new life in prison. What do you do.

6. I know most of you aren't American. Most of you will never support any of Bush's decisions. Some of you probably even laughed at him when he sent air-craft carriers to aid the tsunami victims months ago. I'm sure you know more about Bush than Americans do. :rolleyes:

7. Bush is not Hitler. Hitler sent millions into death camps. Hitler invaded other nations just to send more people into death camps. How many people did Bush order gassed? Sadaam is more comparable to Hitler than Bush is. :eek: Shocking, isn't it, you biased pigs.

8. Iraq is a seperate nation that just needs the Us's help until it can defend itself. It is not pwrt of the US. Sure, it has US embasies. So does France. So does Iran. Are those part of the US?

9. The Iraqis are joining their police force in large numbers. They risk getting shot. They know they are targets now. They know the terrorists see imaginary targets on them. They go and help their fellow citizens against the Syrian, Jordanian, etc. terrorists. Notice how I didn't say Iraqi insurgence. That's because i don't care about the few hundred remaining Bathists.

10. When talking about the war, remember: Supporting the troops' right to live doesn't mean supporting Bush. That shocking fact isn't biased.


Nice...
:) :) :)

NPR? Are you serious?



"September 29, 2004"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050814/pl_afp/usiraqiransyria_050814191957



Ok. That source is just BS. The most biased source you could of brought up. In fact you know what the democraticunderground is? It isn't a source. It is a forum.

Just because you don't like NPR doesn't mean the information they got from a US General is any less valid.

Way to not refute any of the arguments. Did I ever say that there were no foreign fighters in Iraq. Please...

Way to not refute any of the arguments. Did I ever say that there were no foreign fighters in Iraq. Please...

No it just means your argument is not valid anymore and the majority of fighters are in fact insurgents. That's what the US military thinks at this moment.

Additionally, ZMAG which is cited in Democraticunderground is not a valid source.

As we know, the vast majority of Generalites do not support America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Barring the politics in the situation, do you "support the troops"?

Do you cheer for them, or spit on them?

I'm not even going to answer this poll.

Apparently, you think that "supporting the troops" means supporting the war.

I support the troops, which is why I don't support the war.

Did you just source DU when discussing the war? That would be like sourcing Aryan Nation when discussing minorities :rolleyes:


AND 3 other sources. Are you goign to offer anything of substance to this discussion or are you just going to throw a tantrum over links that were provided?

Actually uo should formulate a proper argument. I'm tired of people who cry about the same old issues but never provide anything.

That poster is BS. Propaganda.
My argument was properly formulated, I provided links, and I am not "crying". Your response has been, opinion, zero links, and defamatory remarks. When challenged on these issues, you continue with the hollow rhetoric leading me to believe that you really don't have a rebuttal that will pass the test.

I say the war in Iraq is illegal, and I have provided links. The onus is on you to quit the posturing, and prove your case. I realize that I have presented you with a very difficult task but such are the rules of engagement. Good luck.

No it just means your argument is not valid anymore and the majority of fighters are in fact insurgents. That's what the US military thinks at this moment.

Additionally, ZMAG which is cited in Democraticunderground is not a valid source.

do you know what the word insurgents means? I never said there were no insurgents. What part of my argument isnt valid? A US general himself said that the majority of insurgents are home-grown and those that are attacking civilians are foreign firghters. meaning, if you are able to follow along, that the minority of insurgents are the ones attacking civilians.

I support the troops. There is one simple reason that should be enough for all of us, as long as we have trust in the President.

They are fighting terrorism.

I think little more need be said.

do you know what the word insurgents means? I never said there were no insurgents. What part of my argument isnt valid? A US general himself said that the majority of insurgents are home-grown and those that are attacking civilians are foreign firghters. meaning, if you are able to follow along, that the minority of insurgents are the ones attacking civilians.

That was a major typo. I meant foreigners. My apologies.

I support the troops. There is one simple reason that should be enough for all of us, as long as we have trust in the President.

They are fighting terrorism.

I think little more need be said.

many dont

many dontTheoretically, about half should have at least some degree of trust... he got what, 53% of the popular vote?

Only those over 18 can vote i believe and many didnt vote....

Theoretically, about half should have at least some degree of trust... he got what, 53% of the popular vote?


So say the Neo-Cons...

Theoretically, about half should have at least some degree of trust... he got what, 53% of the popular vote?


nope

OK here is a good and clear summery of why we went into iraq.

1.The whole world thought that Sadaam had WMDs. This was one of the reasons that Iran and Siria had not invaded.

2. A video was captured in Afganastan that showed chemical weapons being tested on a dog. ( I remember it being on CNN but have been unable to find the video, can anyone help)

3. The cave that the video was found in also had other documents that linked the insurgents there to training camps in Iraq.

Concusion, Sadam did not have the capabilities to deploy chem weapons against non local countries, but was willing to give them to people who did have the capabilities to deploy them outside of the middle east.

So say the Neo-Cons...



So....everyone who can count is a neocon? I guess that makes me proud to be a neocon :rolleyes:

Iraq is Vietnam 2, why? They are willing to suffer far more than we are, like the vietcong, and we cant pull out we are obligated to stay seeing as we fucked the country up. And even if the new parliament does take off how do u think they will keep the peace? Not with flowers and shiny voting cards i think. So once again our great westrn leaders hav fucked up the world again, makes me wanna move to New Zealand that way ur about 2000 miles in any dirrecting from a conflict zone

OK here is a good and clear summery of why we went into iraq.

1.The whole world thought that Sadaam had WMDs. This was one of the reasons that Iran and Siria had not invaded.

2. A video was captured in Afganastan that showed chemical weapons being tested on a dog. ( I remember it being on CNN but have been unable to find the video, can anyone help)

3. The cave that the video was found in also had other documents that linked the insurgents there to training camps in Iraq.

Concusion, Sadam did not have the capabilities to deploy chem weapons against non local countries, but was willing to give them to people who did have the capabilities to deploy them outside of the middle east.


I'll give you the main reason...
http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jibarry/Yess/yess01/YessGallery/images/Oil%20Container.jpg

3 Things;

1) I am not a neo-con
2) Less than half the country voted, and those that dont in my oppinion have no right to complain... so I suppose I shoulda said that about 53% of who actually VOTED have some degree of trust
3) What our resident soldier just said!

EDIT: TSI, I reccomend you link that pic, and not post it... it is breaking the forum format, which isn't a nice thing to do

Theoretically, about half should have at least some degree of trust... he got what, 53% of the popular vote?
Nope. 51%. 53% is what's required for a mandate, which was why some people jumped on him when he claimed to have one.

Thanks for the correction, it has been over 9 months now, my memory isn't what it used to be.

do you know what the word insurgents means? I never said there were no insurgents. What part of my argument isnt valid? A US general himself said that the majority of insurgents are home-grown and those that are attacking civilians are foreign firghters. meaning, if you are able to follow along, that the minority of insurgents are the ones attacking civilians.
I follow what you are saying and totally agree. The majority of "insurgents" are Iraqi.

I'll give you the main reason...
http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/slides/oil/1.jpg



Yes, they invaded Iraq to take all the oil that we still haven't taken :rolleyes:

That was a major typo. I meant foreigners. My apologies.


ok so although your link didn't invalidate my argument that the majority of fighters are in fact from iraq, you insist that I am wrong

heres another link for ya
Official: 13,000-17,000 insurgents in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.main/index.html)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military faces between 13,000 and 17,000 insurgents in Iraq, the large majority of them backers of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party, a senior military official said Tuesday.

...

The senior military official told CNN the bulk of the insurgency is made up of 12,000 to 15,000 Arab Sunni followers of Saddam's party. The Baath Party was overthrown by a U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Of those, the source said 5,000 to 7,000 are considered "committed" fighters, with the rest considered "fence-sitters," criminals or "facilitators" who contribute material support or sanctuary to the guerrillas.

The official, who is familiar with the region, said about 500 other fighters have come from other countries to battle the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, while another group of fewer than 1,000 are believed to be followers of Jordanian-born Islamic terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Members of Congress have been pressing senior officers for an assessment of the strength of the insurgency since Iraq's January 30 elections.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Sen. John McCain criticized Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for lacking a readily available estimate of the armed opposition.

"I don't know how you defeat an insurgency unless you have some handle on the number of people that you are facing," the Arizona Republican said.

Told by Myers that some numbers exist but are classified, McCain said, "I think the American people should know the extent of the enemy we are facing."

The numbers are considerably higher than the 5,000 fighters that Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, estimated in November 2003. The Pentagon cautioned, however, that trends are difficult to track.

The official who provided Tuesday's estimate said the U.S. military believes it killed between 10,000 and 15,000 guerillas in combat last year -- perhaps as many as 3,000 during the November push to retake the western Iraqi city of Falluja from insurgents.

But because others join the insurgency to replace those killed, Pentagon analysts have difficulty matching the current number against previous assessments.

In the wake of the elections, in which Iraqis turned out to vote for a transitional parliament, U.S. commanders expressed hope that Iraqis will rethink their commitment to the insurgency.

ok so although your link didn't invalidate my argument that the majority of fighters are in fact from iraq, you insist that I am wrong

heres another link for ya
Official: 13,000-17,000 insurgents in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.main/index.html)

Even if that source is right, didn't you say there were 200,000 insurgents in Iraq?

3 Things;

1) I am not a neo-con
2) Less than half the country voted, and those that dont in my oppinion have no right to complain... so I suppose I shoulda said that about 53% of who actually VOTED have some degree of trust
3) What our resident soldier just said!

EDIT: TSI, I reccomend you link that pic, and not post it... it is breaking the forum format, which isn't a nice thing to do


I did, I didnt think it was that big!

EDIT: And someone has to go quote my bad Pic! Dammit!

Even if that source is right, didn't you say there were 200,000 insurgents in Iraq?
I could say something really funny here, but you wouldn't get it. Not enough to laugh, anyway.

Ho hum.

Yes, they invaded Iraq to take all the oil that we still haven't taken :rolleyes:

Please remove the [img] tags when you quote a picture, NR.

Even if that source is right, didn't you say there were 200,000 insurgents in Iraq?


why wouldn't it be right if it came straight from the Generals mouth? Do you not trust those who are over there fighting the war?

And yes I misspoke. I read this story a while back and remembered wrong.

Here's the thing. I'm anti-war, so I don't really support their mission, however I do hope that they all make it home safely (and soon).

OK here is a good and clear summery of why we went into iraq.

1.The whole world thought that Sadaam had WMDs. This was one of the reasons that Iran and Siria had not invaded.

2. A video was captured in Afganastan that showed chemical weapons being tested on a dog. ( I remember it being on CNN but have been unable to find the video, can anyone help)

3. The cave that the video was found in also had other documents that linked the insurgents there to training camps in Iraq.

Concusion, Sadam did not have the capabilities to deploy chem weapons against non local countries, but was willing to give them to people who did have the capabilities to deploy them outside of the middle east.

Really it can be said that Saddam had pulled off an admittedly clever double-bluff which backfired immensely for him a decade down the road. In 1998 (during the Clinton Administration) after several years of noted interference with inspections, Iraq ejected UN Weapons Inspectors, sustained several small bombing campaigns...to nearly all intelligence agencies and really common perception, it was fairly clear that he was hiding something or other. In fact I'm amazed he did not use the opportunity to rebuild his program as a means of deterence, considering the opportunity afforded him. Gave all the appearence of having a program without actually rebuilding a stockpile..

As for the "Resistance", the French Resistance was on behalf of a democratic state and in fact did not begin significantly until the German invasion of unoccupied Vichy France. The existing French police force was not targeted by the "fifi's" but in fact was rallied to the banner of the Resistance as the allies approached Paris in 1944. Overall the Resistance focused upon targeting not French civilians with no regard for their own citizens, but in fact target specifically German soldiers and at times collaborators. However, the arguement against collarboration for the Germans can be made by several notable distinctions between the US Army/British Army and the Wehrmacht in their mutual occupation policies...

1. The United States and Britain have not forcibly conscripted upwards of over a million Iraqi males (as the Germans did in France) and use them for forced labor in their respective realms in appauling conditions.

2. The United States and Great Britain do not respond to insurgent attacks by executing hostages, and do not liquidate the population of villages near areas of insurgent activity.

3. The United States and Great Britain have not established a dictatorial state which repeals previously well known freedoms (as there were none) of the population. An indicative example being Vichy's replacement of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity with "Work, Family, Country"

4. The United States and Great Britain have not targeted specific minority groups for elimination and mass deportations to unknown destinations in "The East" with the aid of the collaborating authorities

5. The United States and Great Britain have not executed upwards of 50,000 Iraqis (aka not in battle but taking a person and throwing them against a wall or giving them a bullet in the head) as Germany did in France.

OK here is a good and clear summery of why we went into iraq.

1.The whole world thought that Sadaam had WMDs. This was one of the reasons that Iran and Siria had not invaded.

2. A video was captured in Afganastan that showed chemical weapons being tested on a dog. ( I remember it being on CNN but have been unable to find the video, can anyone help)

3. The cave that the video was found in also had other documents that linked the insurgents there to training camps in Iraq.

Concusion, Sadam did not have the capabilities to deploy chem weapons against non local countries, but was willing to give them to people who did have the capabilities to deploy them outside of the middle east.


wow! Your a priori reasoning sucks. Your first point spells out the main problem. Yes a lot of people did think that Saddam had WMDs, but no-one had evidence. Your second and third points only states that a video was found in Afganistan caves, and also in these caves was found documentation that some of these insurgents had trained in Iraq. The two pieces of information aren't contingent ie; meaning that its coincidental eveidence.

Not to mention that Hans Blix had yet to find any chemical weapons and stated that Saddam only had missiles that could travel 100km beyond Iraq's borders. Plus if bordering regions to Iraq and the very people that inhabit Iraq actually think that Saddam is more heavily equipped militarily, then that only suits Saddam........ oh yea, and the U.S.

If Saddam had lost power naturally, as in from an actual enemy that has borders with Iraq, then this would mean that Iraq and it's oil could fall into the hands of another Arab nation. Or, if the people of Iraq had actually exercised their freedom by taking power for themselves (not to be paradoxically ordained to be free by the U.S.) then once again, Iraq could end up under another Islamist state from which ever militants was well funded enough to take over.

But natural progression was too risky for a Neo-con government, just as it was in Viet Nam.

why wouldn't it be right if it came straight from the Generals mouth? Do you not trust those who are over there fighting the war?

And yes I misspoke. I read this story a while back and remembered wrong.
From the article that you linked (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.main/index.html) to, this should clear up the confusion about the number of "insurgents" versus the number of "terrorists" who come from outside Iraq:

The senior military official told CNN the bulk of the insurgency is made up of 12,000 to 15,000 Arab Sunni followers of Saddam's party. The Baath Party was overthrown by a U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Of those, the source said 5,000 to 7,000 are considered "committed" fighters, with the rest considered "fence-sitters," criminals or "facilitators" who contribute material support or sanctuary to the guerrillas.

The official, who is familiar with the region, said about 500 other fighters have come from other countries to battle the U.S.-led forces in Iraq, while another group of fewer than 1,000 are believed to be followers of Jordanian-born Islamic terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

It appears that "insurgents" outnumber outside "terrorists" on a 15 to 1 ratio.

Absoloutely, and I support the War. However, even if I didn't support the war, the troops are just loyal young men and women who are fighting for their countries cause, and how Dare I speak badly of them while they fight for my freedoms.

I would NEVER think badly of our American troops! They have fought for our freedom, and fought for YOUR RIGHT to complain about them! I mean come on! It's a WAR! Of course some people have died, but nowhere near as many as have died in previous wars. why is everyone complaining so much about this one??? I think we should take the time to support the country, and it's decisions to protect our freedoms, as well as those of our allies, and the freedoms that everyone else is entitiled to!

I'm against the war for various reasons. But of course I support the troops. What they're doing takes courage, whether or not I agree with it. And it's disgusting to see people here supporting the terrorists.

Victory to the resistance.
While I feel bad for the working-class soldiers over there who get killed we have to remember that they are still there as agents of imperialism and are therefor legitimate targets for the Iraqis

You're sick.

no i just wrote that in to make it look proffessional. of course you can criticize a little but to label him as a person who is evil is wrong. whoever the president is you should follow him because he is your leader.

I agree. I mean sure, Richard Nixon may have tried to disrupt the democratic process, but it was a time of war! We should have supported him! Screw you, Bob Woodward!

1) The war is not an 'illegal' war, there have been no violations of the Geneva (sp?) Convention on the US's side, and as such, it remains legal (though, the other side at times seems a bit off)

I assume that when people call the War in Iraq illegal, they're reffering to the fact that war was never declared.

2) I have supported my troops since I was little, always have, always will. Every American should be proud to stand up next to the men and women who put their lives on the line to secure the liberty of our country and our allies.

The War in Iraq has nothing to do with helping us or our allies (I would have hardly considered Iraq to be an ally before the war).

Yeah, I am. I'm a Republican. I support the Conflict in Iraq. I think Bush is doing what he thinks best. We are not there to hurt the Iraqui people. We are there to help them from a crazy dictator who killedhis own people for fun. This man was a danger to the free world. He supported terrorists.

Hussein was not a danger to the rest of the world, don't be ridiculous. And if you truly believe that no one should ever criticise the president, then you are nothing but a nationalist fool.

NEVER OUR BUSSINESS HELLO DID I MISS SOMETHING DID YOU ALL FORGET 9/11 IM SURE I DIDNT MY UNCLE WAS GOING INTO THE PENTEGON AND WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BUT DECIDED HE WASNT FEELING WELL I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAR IS OUR BUSINESS.

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Are you really that dillusional?

Iraq couldn't afford it? Hmm.. how many billions did Saddam have from the oil for food program? How many billions was he able to steal? I heard $22 billion. We didn't fuck up the place. Saddam did. We won't lose. This is a completely different situation then Vietnam. The atmosphere is totally different. To compare it to Vietnam shows how you have nothing as far as debating goes.

Yes, we will lose. By allowing Osama to remain unscathed and sending our forces into Iraq when he was surrounded, we have given him a powerful rallying point among extremists and greatly increased the presence of terrorists within Iraq. In addition, history has shown that peace in the Middle East is simply impractical.

Is there an OBVIOUS connection between Sadaam and Bin Laden? No, I will admit that. What the connection is (and a few people will refuse to hear it comming from an ultra-con like myself) is that both are terrorists. Before Desert Storm, how many of his own people did Sadaam kill?

Hussein was not a terrorist. He was a cruel dictator, but not a terrorist.

Well, isnt he? Is there anything good he has done in his stolen terms? Anything at all?

He didn't "steal" the 2004 election. Just accept it.

Iraq is Vietnam 2, why? They are willing to suffer far more than we are, like the vietcong, and we cant pull out we are obligated to stay seeing as we fucked the country up. And even if the new parliament does take off how do u think they will keep the peace? Not with flowers and shiny voting cards i think. So once again our great westrn leaders hav fucked up the world again, makes me wanna move to New Zealand that way ur about 2000 miles in any dirrecting from a conflict zone

Don't compare Iraq to Vietnam. If Iraq gets anywhere near as bad as Vietnam was, then we're in serious trouble.

Don't compare Iraq to Vietnam. If Iraq gets anywhere near as bad as Vietnam was, then we're in serious trouble.It already is. People hating the troops rather then thanking them and welcoming them home from tours of duty; Seemingly innocent civilians blowing themselves up near troops, etc, etc, etc... how much more of a comparison do you need before we can call it what it has become?

It already is. People hating the troops rather then thanking them and welcoming them home from tours of duty; Seemingly innocent civilians blowing themselves up near troops, etc, etc, etc... how much more of a comparison do you need before we can call it what it has become?Um... I'm not someone that served in Vietnam or Iraq, but in a different thread, two people that did serve in Vietnam would protest vehemently to such a comparison.

So 24 of you would shoot the messenger who brought you bad news. I find that distressing. :(

many dont (refering to trusting the pres.)

But why? What is wrong with the president? I suppose he may have made some mistakes but so do all humans! He certainly made less mistakes than Kerry would have. President Bush is a good man. If someone attacks our nation, they have declared war, so we kick their butts. If we say oh but we want peace! Well what is peace then? If we don't defend ourselves, they would probably do many more attacks on us and cause much more CHAOS, the opposite of peace. Therefor, we are gaining peace by fighting them. There are always struggles in doing so, and people make mistakes, but we are better off fighting the terrorism than letting them attack us!

If someone attacks our nation, they have declared war, so we kick their butts.
Iraq never attacked us. We attacked them.

yes and no. i support them, because they're very brave and all, and i don't want them to get blown up or anything, but i don't support their reason for being there.

(refering to trusting the pres.)

But why? What is wrong with the president? I suppose he may have made some mistakes but so do all humans! He certainly made less mistakes than Kerry would have.

And you know this how?

So 24 of you would shoot the messenger who brought you bad news. I find that distressing. :(
I'm one of 24 who voted my lack of support for your troops. My decision to vote 'no' has nothing to do with messengers, messages or 'bad news'. It has everything to do with my beliefs.

So don't feel too distressed, I'm sure you can easily dismiss any beliefs I may hold as being somehow invalid. As usual.

[QUOTE=The South Islands] America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Illegal war is far too harsh!
And, besides, how is it 'illegal' anyway. Because the spineless press say it is?
You can't even spell illegal!

[QUOTE=The South Islands] America's illeagal war with Iraq.

Illegal war is far too harsh!
And, besides, how is it 'illegal' anyway. Because the spineless press say it is?
You can't even spell illegal!
Great argument.

I support the troops for doing their job. I don't support what their job currently is.

As such I did not cast a vote in the poll part of this thread.

Illegal war is far too harsh!
And, besides, how is it 'illegal' anyway. Because the spineless press say it is?
You can't even spell illegal!

Says the person who can't even edit text properly. Here's how to do a quote:

This is a fucking quote, see?

Get it?

Class dismissed.

Their mission? It might help if I knew what in the hell it was. Let's see. It's not about WMD....anymore. It never was about fighting terrorism, really. If it was, we could have picked much better targets. I suppose it could be about overthrowing tyranny, but once again, much better targets could have been chosen. I'm definitely not getting any solid answers to these questions by, well, anyone. I know that I don't want Americans to die for some fuzzy, half answered cause. I do know that. But when some 19 year old goes off on patrol in Sadr City, I'm behind him 100%, in hoping that he gets to see his home and his or her family again.

I would NEVER think badly of our American troops! They have fought for our freedom, and fought for YOUR RIGHT to complain about them! I mean come on! It's a WAR! Of course some people have died, but nowhere near as many as have died in previous wars. why is everyone complaining so much about this one??? I think we should take the time to support the country, and it's decisions to protect our freedoms, as well as those of our allies, and the freedoms that everyone else is entitiled to!The reason everyone is complaining about this one is that unlike in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War and perhaps a lot of other wars, the US wasn't intervening on behalf of someone or because someone else tried to take what wasn't theirs.
That's one of the more simple reasons.

Illegal war is far too harsh!
And, besides, how is it 'illegal' anyway. Because the spineless press say it is?
You can't even spell illegal!Actually, its because a lot of countries (191 to be exact) agreed that its wrong to attack other countries when they haven't done anything to you.

One thing that Vietnam taught us was that generals make good politicians, but politicians make very shitty generals.

In war, you fight to win, or you don't fight at all.

The US congress is the only body in the world that have ever defeated the US military. There are members of the media that litteraly drool at the thought of more dead soldiers. These jackals would like nothing better than to turn Iraq into a Vietnam. They seem frustrated that they haven't been able to yet, and most likely never will.

One thing that Vietnam taught us was that generals make good politicians, but politicians make very shitty generals.

In war, you fight to win, or you don't fight at all.

The US congress is the only body in the world that have ever defeated the US military. There are members of the media that litteraly drool at the thought of more dead soldiers. These jackals would like nothing better than to turn Iraq into a Vietnam. They seem frustrated that they haven't been able to yet, and most likely never will.
So who upsets you more - the only body in the world to have ever 'defeated' the US military, or the free press?

I dont understand why being against a war means you dont 'support the troops'?

I think that US and UK and all other soldiers in Iraq are the bravest men and women in the world. But I dont support the politicians who sent them there.

I support our troops. And look forward to when they come home. I don't support BUSH!!! That jerk can go to Iraq and get himself killed for all I care. The Troops are there because Baby Bush wants to make Papa Bush proud.

I support our troops. And look forward to when they come home. I don't support BUSH!!! That jerk can go to Iraq and get himself killed for all I care. The Troops are there because Baby Bush wants to make Papa Bush proud.Nah, I don't think they have that great of a relationship. King George the Lesser wants to be able rub it in to daddy that he managed to get rid of Saddam AND get reelected...

Things to remember:

1. When bending over backwards to appease the toerrists, it helps if you drive to your protest in an electric car, not a an SUV.

2. When protesting this "illegal war" it is good form to lie as much as possible about the President, the War in Iraq, and your fellow citizens, the American Soldier.

3. Take all your cues from moron.org, Airhead America, and the racist pukes in the democrat party.

4. Be sure your facists ideas are in synch with your unwashed boyfriend, I would hate to seee you to have a fight.

5. Be sure you insult everyone who does not believe the same as you, because "acceptance of a person is acceptance of their beliefs".


Stop being a bigot. You can disagree with someone without being an uncouth bigot.

Knock it off, now. Any more out of you, like this, and you will be warned.

You arrogant little fascist.

You need to quit with the insults. There's no need for it.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

Scary.

Actually, its because a lot of countries (191 to be exact) agreed that its wrong to attack other countries when they haven't done anything to you.
Wrong--
191 Nations said they did not approve--that does not make it Illegal.

I dont understand why it so hard for people to grasp this, something not being popular and being Illegal are two different things--I blame MTV.

The UN has placed no sanctions, no nation has petitioned the Security Council, no one has done anything but say "We dont like that"--wake up that is not grounds for calling it Illegal.

Wrong--
191 Nations said they did not approve--that does not make it Illegal.
I was referring to the signatories of the UN charter. A lot less than 191 said they did not approve.
The Charter says that no military action is legal unless it is doled out by the SC or in self defence.

I dont understand why it so hard for people to grasp this, something not being popular and being Illegal are two different things--I blame MTV.
That's good. I can't stand STV either (music television? Yeah right! When it isn't commercials, its f*cking Ashton Kutscher!)

The UN has placed no sanctions, no nation has petitioned the Security Council, no one has done anything but say "We dont like that"--wake up that is not grounds for calling it Illegal.I never said it was. Please don't make me sound like I'm stupid. It's kind of insulting. The SC not doing anything has nothing to do with it.

I don't support the troops, because it was their choice to join the army in the first place. sure they can whine about being 'forced' to go to iraq and what not, but in the end, they're the ones who are doing the dirty work, and they're the ones who are making the iraqi people suffer. yeah, theyre suffering man, theyre suffering too, but the truth is, they didnt have to be there...
in my opinion, the army is just a waste of life. im sorry, i cant sympathize with the soldiers down there. several of them WANT to serve the regime, and are actually enthusiastic about going down there, which i dislike.

just my opinion, i dont mean this to be a hate post, its just my point of view.

Okay it seems that a few right-wingers have been calling me "sick" and a "fascist". What a fucking joke.

I don't want Americans/Brits to die, but ultimately I support the Iraqi resistance over the Coalition Forces. Now somehow because I support a different side to the war to you I am sick?

You ultimately seek the deaths of Iraqis who are trying to destroy an imperialist force occupying their country. I am seeking the withdrawal of this invading army and will support most (not all) actions that further this, which includes the killing of coalition troops.

It seems as though most people think that because I am from Britain I should be supporting "our boys" over there. Bollocks to that, I'm not bound by this sickening nationalist spirit which determines that people from my country are more important than any other.

Sorry if this is a little confused. It's late.

Who the Hell voted no?

Who the Hell voted no?
I did. The Hell I did. I'm entitled.

Who the Hell voted no?
Try reading the rest of the thread or maybe click on the numbers which show up who voted for what

I'm one of 24 who voted my lack of support for your troops.
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
Maybe because I'm consistent in my disdain for militarism.

Okay it seems that a few right-wingers have been calling me "sick" and a "fascist". What a fucking joke.

I don't want Americans/Brits to die, but ultimately I support the Iraqi resistance over the Coalition Forces. Now somehow because I support a different side to the war to you I am sick?

You ultimately seek the deaths of Iraqis who are trying to destroy an imperialist force occupying their country. I am seeking the withdrawal of this invading army and will support most (not all) actions that further this, which includes the killing of coalition troops.

It seems as though most people think that because I am from Britain I should be supporting "our boys" over there. Bollocks to that, I'm not bound by this sickening nationalist spirit which determines that people from my country are more important than any other.

Sorry if this is a little confused. It's late.Not all insurgents are Iraqis, but I guess its kinda hard to get any exact figures on that.

I don't mind legitimate resistance to an invading force. However, I do mind killing innocent civilians with suicide bombs because they, unlike soldiers, don't fire back. It's sick and disgusting that a lot of "freedom fighters" have taken to this strategy.

Likewise, no one should have been calling you a fascist. That was uncalled for.

Who the Hell voted no?I did. I've got a damn good reason too, which you could have read about earlier if you tried.

I don't mind legitimate resistance to an invading force. However, I do mind killing innocent civilians with suicide bombs because they, unlike soldiers, don't fire back. It's sick and disgusting that a lot of "freedom fighters" have taken to this strategy.

I dont support suicide bombings or attacks on civilians either. Though I may disagree with some of the resistance's tactics, I still support what they're fighting for.

Not all insurgents are Iraqis, but I guess its kinda hard to get any exact figures on that.

I don't mind legitimate resistance to an invading force. However, I do mind killing innocent civilians with suicide bombs because they, unlike soldiers, don't fire back. It's sick and disgusting that a lot of "freedom fighters" have taken to this strategy.

Likewise, no one should have been calling you a fascist. That was uncalled for.


US govt figures say that there are approx. 17,000 insurgents. Approx. 1500 of them are foreign to Iraq and are the ones responsible for attacking civilians. There are a few links back in the thread on this.

TERRORISTS SENT BY THE GOVERNMENT!?!?!?Well, when one elects terrorists... why, yes.

What is wrong with you people?Oh, nothing I'm sure a spell in a re-education camp couldn't re-affirm. Any one not part of the US Coalition shouldn't even speak.Gosh, arranging that might take some time. Better look into the feasibility of rendering so much of the world surgically mute before taking on that task.
I'm really sick of Europeans whining and not contributing to the worldI suppose that'd depend on the definition of of 'contributing' meaning to invade, occupy, and create puppet governments. Tricky.
Yes I know our current administration is a bunch of dweebsWho am I to argue that one? but you have to support the troops.Nope. No, you don't. Not even close.
And Laerod you nazi go to hell.Now how cliche can you get on your first post?

I dont support suicide bombings or attacks on civilians either. Though I may disagree with some of the resistance's tactics, I still support what they're fighting for."Some"? I'd personally have to agree with that. Considering what little I get from the German media, I assume they'd be much happier to show me dead American soldiers than dead Iraqi civilians, so I'm gonna guess that "some" doesn't quite fit. "Most" would fit better. I have no experience in this, but I believe it would be more fun to shoot at someone that doesn't wear body armor and has a gun than someone that does. I also have a feeling that most of the insurgents that would have disagreed with me are dead.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Is it so wrong to have an opinion that differs from yours? You really make yourself look like a jerk with posts like this.

The poll is badly phrased. While I do not wish to see American soldiers suffer and die, and would very much like to see them all come home safe, the term "support our troops" is a loaded phrase. To "Support our troops" one must also support the immoral, unjustified war they are fighting and the administration with ordered them there.

So... Yes, I support our troops, but no, I do not "Support our troops", if that makes any sense.